My naive opinion on the current strategy for dealing with Russia
Maybe Cold War organizations like NATO don’t see it, as their people are indoctrinated by the need for a unified strategy against a common enemy (keep Russia out, Germany down and the United States in).
But the world has changed since 1989.
Whenever the Soviet Union was stubborn, it was also predictable. Today’s Russia is not predictable. It is and has been pushing its real goals in a rather subtle way (even if you think the Georgian crisis was not subtle, the real Russian goal is). You can no longer just contain Russia. Neither can you easily engage with them. You need to ‘negotiate’ your relationship with it.
By kicking Russia out of treaties and organizations, all you will achieve is that Russia will start doing business with individual European countries rather than with the European Union. Which means different market rules will play. Less control over mutual interests in Europe: more competition among the individual European countries over Russia’s resources and market, sharper differences between Western -and Eastern Europe.
In the long run the result of that will be a split of Europe into Western -and Eastern Europe. This would be followed by a decline of Western power over Eastern European countries. Strategically seen, this would be a perfect outcome for Russia. A dream come true, for them.
Without the wealthy Western Europe, both the economy and industry of many of Eastern Europe’s countries are still underdeveloped and not yet ready to compete, on their own, against three major economic powers. As a result would Eastern Europe become yet another unstable region in the World.
Russia conducting the Orchestra of opposition politics in those countries, and Russian media influence, will for many sound like an answer to their dissatisfactions.
I think it’s for that reason that keeping Eastern Europe within the group called “Europe”, is something you want to strive for. A split with Western Europe would inevitably mean major influence from Russia in these Eastern European countries and regions.
It’s in fact already taking place here and there. If you take off your by propaganda blinded glasses and go look for the facts, you’ll see.
My own naive proposal
Russia’s regime is doomed the moment the Russian elite looses its European legitimacy. Russia’s future wealth depends on Europe’s willingness to continue doing business with them. This business must be in both directions. Just selling gas yet remaining isolated from the World markets means that for example your currency can easily be devaluated outside of your borders. Meaning that you are selling your resources too cheap or that the actual price that you got for it depends on the politics of other nations (like petrodollars). Replace currency with any other valuable resource located within your own borders.
The Russian elite who keep people like Vladimir Putin in power are the same people who are doing business selling Russian gas to Europe. If we want a peaceful world, we can seize the opportunity of doing business with these Russian elites to convince them of at least certain of European’s values. Values like free markets. Especially as we integrate our European businesses into Russia and especially if Russian elites start seeing the benefits of that (wealth), will European values further influence Russian politics.
If we kick them out of our organizations, they’ll just continue doing business with individual European countries. Making it harder to keep Europe united. They very well know that Europe needs energy. They know individual European countries will continue buying gas from Russia.
It would be insane because if we don’t, China will. And then China instead will get a strategic partnership with Russia. Pushing their values and culture. Rising new economies are the circumstances of today. Containment is not an answer to changed circumstances.
Europeans want a multipolar World, right? This is the opportunity to have Russia, China, United States and Europe as different economic powers (I simplified it, I of course know there are more economic centers).
My naive conclusion
A new kind of World is coming towards us. Although the history book on the shelve is always repeating itself, all we can do is learn from the past.
Learning however, is not the same as maintaining a strategy designed for completely different past circumstances. We are called humans because unlike many other species we can intelligently adapt ourselves. Let’s consume that capability.
In order to succeed as a people, as a nation and as a culture you have to synchronize your strategy with today’s circumstances.
It’s our time and our generation, to cope with them.
Well well… I am watching you, comrade!
Dude, I couldn’t care less about your political views.
In other words: I do _not_ want to read them on Planet Gnome.
I wrote this on a former blog item as a ps:
Planet.gnome picks the categories it wants to syndicate from my blog. I don’t send blog items to planet.gnome myself. Instead, planet.gnome picks them. I have a category specifically dedicated to technology. This item is specifically not categorized in a technical category. Don’t blame me for political content on planet.gnome.
So ‘Me’ guy: please fuck off
Thanks
I rather enjoyed reading, thanks.
I also enjoyed the read and mostly share your opinions.
To the “Me” complainer: Dude, I couldn’t care less about your views about blog posts that should or should not be on pgo.
In other words: I do _not_ want to read them on Planet Gnome blogs comments.
I agree. I thought it was an interesting view of the situation.
Totally agree that tightening ranks with Eastern Europe and forcing Russia to deal with the EU (and maybe NATO) as a single body is right.
I’m more skeptical about anybody’s leverage against Russia – right now anyway. Russia’s a natural resource giant, and we’re in a hell of commodities boom. Right now, particularly in the EU, I think the leverage works the other way. Now as the commodities boom wanes (if it ever does?), or as the EU weens itself of foreign energy, things will turn around and you’ll have some real ability to affect Russian policies and values. We had just that opportunity in the 90s when oil prices collapsed, and largely squandered it. Here’s hoping next time will go better!
I think you overlook one thing: we, Eastern European, are so burned by our history with Russia that we don’t want to have anything to do with it. Look how Georgia’s best supporters are East European countries: the Baltics, Poland, Ukraine…
As for my country, Romania, we (and I talk about common people, not politicians) are watching closely, since Moldova (a former part of our country) has with Transnistria exactly the same situation as Georgia with South Ossetia (the difference: they were at war in the 90s and Russia won).
Probably this is why we are very intolerant with Russia and acting like USA whores.
@nicu: agree, really. I totally agree. Don’t get me wrong. And we Western Europeans are wary of but nonetheless want Eastern Europe to be one with Western Europe.
BUT
Just pissing at Russia is just going to drive the individual countries of Europe further away from each other rather than closer together.
If (Western) Europe is wealthy and powerful today, the most important reason is that after years of wars and conflicts, it has learned to do mutual cooperation, to have mutual respect for culture, among the different member nations.
Portraying Russia has black/white evil/good, this or that … doesn’t work.
Never has, never will be.
That doesn’t mean we need extreme female emotional politics either. We just need grayscale politics.
It’s in human nature to believe there’s only one “perfect”. It’s our failure as a species. There’s not one perfect. There’s only gray.
I’ve little-bit different view on Russia issues, perhaps because I’m an East-European (from Baltics).
I think the main thing many West-Europeans miss is that Russia has autocratic leadership that has very strong economic, national, media influence. Russia is lead by KGB grown leaders who have big geopolitical ambitions.
It is very dangerous to believe that increasing the commodity and economic dependence on Russia will decrease the strength of Russia or make it more democratic. Actually it is other way around. As Russian leaders can control export and import, they will use that power as a tool to exert pressure to any trade partner if necessary. For example, in the year 2007 Russia cut off 50% of imports from Estonia after Estonian government made some decisions Russia didn’t like. This cut of imports was done without passing any laws (such laws would have been in breach of Russia’s WTO treaties) but by using bureaucratic measures and governmental influence on bigger Russian supermarket chains.
The way ahead for EU is to have unified foreign policy. And this foreign policy also has to protect the interests of East-European countries, and not just be a soft stance to Russia that big European powers, like Italy or France, are pushing now.
Have you ever heard of an “embargo”? Look, if the EU can’t hold up against Russia, what is the point of the EU? Your answer is to give into aggression because you believe the EU is too weak. The EU has friends beyond the EU you know.
When USA begin war in Iraq – everything is OK. When USA begin war in serbia – everything is OK. When kosovo goes out from serbia… When USA pace own army in poland… When american president of Georgia(fucking misha) killed thouthands of people of south osetia – Russia is guilty.
Everyone says if Russia becomes strong it would be bad for all. But look at other countries…
There is one think that still bothers me in your post and in the comments: Why is Russia by default considered as a threat? It is a realtively new country that has almost nothing left in common with USSR (you cannot even imagine how it has changed since 1991 unless you go there) and that has the will and the power to live as it want to and has the same rights to achieve its goals (political, economical, etc…) as for example the US or the EU…
So why these double standards?
Why agreeing with the independency of Kosovo and why openly supporting Tibet in its fight for independency from China and at the same time refusing the right to become independent from Georgia to South Osetia?
Why blaming the Russians that they invaded Georgia while they had a mandate from the UN to be present there as peacekeepers? Despite what you see on CNN (and the like) the Georgian attacked first, not the Russians. And the Russian army is also defending its own population (about 70% of South Osetians have Russian nationality). How would the US behave if its own citizens were attacked by the Mexican army in Mexico near american border?
I can understand why 50+ people from the former eastern block don’t like Russia today (and how their governments use that feeling to gain political benefit out of it). But it makes me sad when I see young people from these countries blindly follow the “hate Russia” trend without really knowing why…
@molumen: all I can answer to that is that blaming (somebody like) me for that wont help Russia. What will help Russia is to keep piercing the propaganda that made Western people afraid of Russia by proving it wrong.
@Drolyk: I’m not in disagreement, but I’m also not going to be as naive as to think that Russia did come to aid just to protect people. It’s quite clear that Russia wanted to make a statement, too. Given the rather weak reaction from European countries, I think if anything … that Russia succeeded quite well in making it.
@Russ: You better rename “friends” with “friend”. And you better learn to understand that Europeans have learned that this “friend” is unreliable, tortures people, invades countries based on a self-produced ridiculous lie and of whom a lot of its people are increasingly becoming almost fanatic religious (which by itself is fine but) and are increasingly mixing that religion with politics (which is quite incompatible with modern European values).
@uhuu: Why is it dangerous? Lookup how the United States became a close ally of Japan. Did that make Japan more dangerous?
“You better rename “friends” with “friend”. And you better learn to understand that Europeans have learned that this “friend” is unreliable, tortures people, invades countries based on a self-produced ridiculous lie and of whom a lot of its people are increasingly becoming almost fanatic religious (which by itself is fine but) and are increasingly mixing that religion with politics (which is quite incompatible with modern European values). ”
Come now. All of those things can be true and yet together tell less than the full story. Viewing the USA through the lens of only its worst failings – however real – does not give anyone a useful picture.
Eh, man, I really want to come at this from another angle, but I’m afraid I’ll sound like an apologist for war crimes & etc. Part of the problem I have with your characterization of the USA is, fuck, under violent circumstances *everyone* has just a terrible capacity to commit atrocities. Any time you send people out of their nice, civilized home and into a world of violence, a certain amount of them are going to go nuts. You can say, “well don’t send your people into violence”, but I don’t think that’s the right lesson, because inaction (Darfur) can lead to bigger crimes than flawed action (Yugoslavia); I think the lesson is “send them when you think it’s right, but prepare for and try to prevent atrocities, because they tend to happen”. Until Europe finds itself needing to forcefully uphold its values, its criticism of the USA’s failing will be… I wanted to write “hollow” here, but that’s not it… their criticism will continue to misses the point. You just can’t act without sometimes horribly failing.
Or that’s kind of what I think anyway.
Ah shit, I also meant to say, I hope nobody reads that as a defense of the Iraq war or something. I wrote it with Darfur vs. Yugoslavia in mind, and not Iraq or whatever.
It’s more about the lies, the torturing and the bluntness of the US foreign politics than about the very fact that US soldiers do atrocities. It’s also about the kind of weapons that got chosen (which is not in the hands of the soldiers on the ground) and about the kind of political decision making.
It could all have been done a lot better.
But you are right about Darfur.
s/free markets/individual freedom/ (freedom in the broadest european socialist-style definition for me, including free healthcare – ymmv)
I’m not saying that free markets are a not a part of that goal :)
Mixing Russia with the rest of Europe is like mixing water and oil. They do not mix. The integration will not happen. The living conditions for ordinary Russians living out of Moscow will not change, the dictatorship will be the same.
If you (naïvely) believe that Russia will play the rules you expect from them, you are just a ostrich hiding your head in the sand.
“It’s more about the lies, the torturing and the bluntness of the US foreign politics than about the very fact that US soldiers do atrocities. It’s also about the kind of weapons that got chosen (which is not in the hands of the soldiers on the ground) and about the kind of political decision making.
It could all have been done a lot better.”
Yeah it’s been a very bad several years. The larger point I’m trying to get at is once you acknowledge that sometimes violence is less bad than minding your own business, you end up being responsible for a certain amount of horrific abuses, because they follow directly from the willingness to involve yourself. It doesn’t excuse your failures – nothing ever can – but it does force you to narrow your criticism from the broad “country A, mind your own business” to the much narrower “country A, do X, Y, and Z better next time”.
Incidentally I was reading around on this issue and came across this article by an American freelance journalist in Georgia right now. It’s a long read and a lot to digest, and I would not call it authoritative or anything, but it presents a case opposite to the view that Georgians began the war and invited the Russians in. I don’t think I know enough about the issue to have a firm opinion myself. Any thoughts?
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/08/the-truth-about-1.php